this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2024
77 points (96.4% liked)

Technology

58701 readers
4047 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] unlawfulbooger@lemmy.blahaj.zone 19 points 12 hours ago (2 children)
[–] Lojcs@lemm.ee 7 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

Except a computer isn't making decisions here? An investigator is making decisions, the computer is sorting the investigatees. Even if that wasn't the case it wouldn't be ambiguous who to blame, it's clearly on who decided what goes into the algorithm and how it should work

Edit: even beyond who would be legally responsible, as evidenced by this article and others like it people are already holding policy makers and anti welfare instigators responsible. The fall guy being one step removed from the crime doesn't change who made it happen

[–] vonxylofon@lemmy.world 2 points 8 hours ago

With a clear set of criteria, you can easily make this argument that the designer of the discrimination system is culpable because they input discriminatory criteria into the system, I'm with you there.

However, with AI, it may easily happen that unforeseen discriminatory behaviour emerges, in which case I would argue it is indistinguishable in practice whether a computer is purely evaluating criteria or making a decision on its own for the purposes of calling decisions discriminatory.

The same happens e.g. when discovering new proteins using AI. AI comes up with a protein, you confirm it's better than the previous one, victory. There may be a better one, but that's not really a concern here. Same can't be said when targetting a group of people with repressive measures.

[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 5 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 children)

Well, it didn't quite turn out that way, did it?